Joseph Alois Ratzinger: Ever Impervious to the Horror of Personal Sin, Including His Own Sins of Heresy

There are so many times when news reports that purport to break a supposedly “new” story” do nothing other than re-state facts already well-known.

Such is the case with a news report concerning the blame being apportioned to the nonagenarian “new theologian,” Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, for reassigning a known pederast, Father Peter Hullermann, in a meeting that took place in the chancery office of the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising on January 15, 1980. Here is the news story:

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI was accused Thursday by a German investigative panel of "wrongdoing" in his handling of sexual-abuse cases during his time at the head of the Munich archdiocese, from 1977 to1982, when he was known as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

The law firm that conducted the investigation says Benedict's claims that he had no direct knowledge of the cases of sexual abuse were ultimately not credible. 

The firm introduced its nearly 1,900-page report at a news conference Thursday, during which it said that Benedict could be accused of wrongdoing in four cases of sexual abuse, including one in which he knowingly accepted a priest into his archdiocese after the former had been criminally convicted of sexual abuse.

"The present findings indicate that Cardinal Ratzinger had knowledge of the history of the priest," said one of the attorneys involved with the report.

The cases examined by the German firm took place at a time prior to the time it became understood how rampant an issue sexual abuse was within the Church, and how an individual who went on to become the Pope emeritus behaved as they played out.

Despite hundreds of victims having been identified in the report and hundreds of accusations against those investigated by the firm, the attorneys believe "that the dark field in this regard is much wider."

In the case of the Rev. Peter Hullermann, against whom allegations first arose in the late 1970s (when Ratzinger was archbishop), a therapy sentence in Munich was initially prescribed, followed by a suspended jail sentence for abusing children in 1986. But he was only removed from his position in 2010, when it was discovered that he was still working closely with children.

In a statement, the Vatican said it would devote "appropriate attention" to the report and reiterated its stance of "shame and remorse for abuses committed by clerics against minors."

The Pope Emeritus's personal secretary said, "The Pope Emeritus, as he has already repeated several times during the years of his pontificate, expresses his shock and shame at the abuse of minors committed by clerics, and expresses his personal closeness and prayer for all the victims, some of whom he has met on the occasion of his apostolic journeys." (A German investigation into abuses within the Catholic Church accuses Pope Benedict of 'wrongdoing'.)

This “news” story is no news story at all as the basic facts were known twelve years ago.

Ratzinger/Benedict's passivity in 1980 is what characterizes his blasé acceptance of the heresy uttered by "Archbishop" Robert Zollitsch on Holy Saturday, April 11, 2009, as the president of the conciliar “bishops” conference in the Federal Republic of Germany and the conciliar ordinary of the Archdiocese of Freiburg in Breisgau, Germany, denied publicly that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ died on the wood of the Holy Cross in atonement for our sins. Nearly thirteen years have passed since Robert Zollitsch uttered this blasphemous heresy. Not a word of public rebuke has been heard from Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, and it is this passivity in the face of outright denials of Catholic dogma by his own “bishops” that made it far easier for the false “pontiff” to fail to recognize that the proximate root cause of the clergy abuse scandals in the conciliar church is the promotion of sodomites and the agenda of sodomy that has prospered in the ethos of conciliarism and in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo worship service.

Moreover, as has been pointed out in the past, Ratzinger/Benedict himself is a lifelong blasphemer who has called down himself the wrath of God by denying the nature of dogmatic truth to consign the dogmatic pronouncements of the Catholic Church's true councils and the teachings of her true popes to the dustbin of history by asserting that they can be reinterpreted now because the language used at the time of their formulation was conditioned on the historical circumstances of the moment, an assertion that is an utter act of blasphemy against God the Holy Ghost. Ratzinger/Benedict has praised false religions, esteemed their symbols with his own priestly hands, entered into their places of false worship and called them “sacred,” and has stressed that the “values” of false religions can help to build the “better,” more “peaceful” world. A man who believes and does these things will be incapable of reacting with the proper amount of moral outrage when faced with the suffering of the sheep, reacting only when bad press forces him to do so.

Ratzinger/Benedict's defenders in the conciliar Vatican and elsewhere twelve years ago tried to blame The New York Times and other media outlets for “picking” on what they believe to be the Catholic Church when instances of abuse by moral perverts is more prevalent in other segments of society. While I have no doubt at all that editors and publishers of the anti-Catholic New York Times did do everything imaginable to make life difficult for the man most people in the world at the time believed was the Vicar of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ on earth, the conciliar authorities continue to this very day to give the enemies of the Church a great deal of ammunition, and one’s own protection and indemnification of malefactors can never be defended by point out similar problems in secular institutions.

The Catholic Church is the Mystical Bride of the Divine Redeemer. She is supposed to take the lead in rooting out recidivist sinners from the ranks of her clergy, not taking refuge in the fact that groups of merely human origin may have more problems or may have been less forthright in their dealing with those problems. Each of us is going to be judged by Our Lord individually at the moment of our Particular Judgments. It will be no defense at that time to try to claim that others were worse that they we had been, that we were “pretty good” in comparison with others.

No, that won’t work.

We are not judged by Our Lord on a “curve” as there is an objective standard from which there is no exception and no appeal. Men who consider themselves, albeit erroneously, to be officials of the Catholic Church are supposed to understand this and not to use lame excuses in defense of how they and their confederates have indemnified abusive clergymen and have turned a blind eye to the promotion of the culture of perversion that has been created and fostered within their ranks.

Ratzinger/Benedict maintained the good standing of countless spiritual and moral menaces to the souls of those who are as of yet attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. The names are legion: Roger Mahony, Tod Brown, George Niederauer, William Levada, Sylvester Ryan (each of which were closely associated in their seminary days), David Brom, Howard Hubbard, William Skylstad, Robert Banks, Bernard Law, William Murphy, John McCormack, Richard Lennon, Rembert Weakland, Joseph Imesch, Thomas Gumbleton, Timothy Dolan, Francis George, John Favalora, Thomas Daily, Richard Sklba, Michael Sheehan, Raymond Hunthausen, Matthew Clark, Edward Egan, Theodore McCarrick, and Daniel Pilarczyk, among so many others.

Each of these men protected or looked the other way at those who were recidivist practitioners of perversion.

Each of these men permit the innocent and purity of children to be undermined by the horror of explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.

Some of these men have praised motion pictures that have served as propaganda vehicles in behalf of perversion.

Two of them, Weakland and Gumbleton, have written explicit in support of perverse acts in violation of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments as expressions of “love.”

Each of them engages in the forbidden practices of ecumenism and “inter-religious prayer” services.

Each of them, accompanied by all other Roman Rite “bishops” in the conciliar structures, offends God by simulating a “worship service” that is a corruption of Catholic liturgy and that has reaffirmed ordinary Catholics in the spirit of the world.

These men are scandals in the sight of God for the doctrines they propose, for the liturgy they “offer” and for the behavior they have countenanced and enabled among their clergy as so many of them have used clubs against the suffering sheep to protect their own clerical club of privilege in this world that will do them no good in the next if they do not repent of having turned the sheep away to protect themselves and their own reputations. While it is certainly true that fallen human nature caused many true bishops of the Catholic Church to misuse their clerical authority in the past (and to cause some today to do so in the Catholic catacombs) that has played a significant role into feeding into the scandals of recent years, it is also true that the problems at present are far worse because the conciliar “popes” and their “bishops” defect from the Catholic Faith in so many ways and participate in liturgical services that would have made the Arians blanche.

To be sure, an examination of our own consciences will reveal that at least some of us  have given scandal to others by our public words and actions. The mind does not want fathom the horrible truth that one or more souls might have lost the Faith or have been turned away from any real consideration of converting to it by things we may have said or done to them or in their presence, which is why we need to pray to Saint Mary Magdalene, Saint Augustine of Hippo, Saint Camillus de Lellis, Saint Mary of Egypt, Saint Margaret of Cortona, and even Saint John of God, who had a rough patch in his life, that our prayers and penances and mortifications and sacrifices offered to God through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary will help to win back the souls who we may have scandalized.

It is a terrible, terrible thing to reckon with the fact that one might be responsible for the loss of a single soul. It is thus the case that that while decry the insensitivity to the loss of souls demonstrated by the conciliar “bishops,” we must never lose sight of how we might have demonstrated this insensitivity in our own lives. The loss of the Faith in a single soul is indeed very much a matter of the Faith!

May Our Lord have mercy on us as we call to mind the love that led Him to suffer and die for us that we might have the very life of Sanctifying Grace in our souls in this life and thus be able to enjoy the blessedness of Heaven in the next. May He have mercy on us as we invoke the help of His Most Blessed Mother, whose Immaculate Heart was pierced through and through by our sins with those Seven Swords of Sorrow, by remaining faithful clients of her Most Holy Rosary.

Herewith, therefore, are two contemporary commentaries from twelve years ago about “L’Affaire Hullermann” that demonstrate the abject passivity of Joseph Alois Ratzinger when faced with moral predation and his abject blindness about the horror of personal sin, including his own sins against the First and Second Commandments:

Waterloo for Benedict?

March 13, 2010

What are the defenders of all things Benedict going to say now?

That he didn't know about the perverted priest in the Diocese of Essen within the metropolitan province of the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising when he was the conciliar archbishop there between March 24, 1977, to February 15, 1982?

That was, as his spin-doctoring spokesman, “Father” Federico Lombardi, S.J., is contending with a straight face, all the fault of the vicar general of the archdiocese?

That he, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, just did not understand the seriousness of the allegations, that he was acting upon the advice given him by “experts” in mental health and pastoral ministry?

That he is being persecuted for being the “restorer of traditions” and his efforts at “reconciliation” with the Society of Saint Pius X?

That the secular press in Germany is trying to “get” the false “pontiff.” (Actually, this “shoot the messenger” message is being used aggressively by some in the conciliar Vatican at this time. See Vatican Speaks as Abuse Details Emerge.)

What are the defenders of all things Benedict going to say about the emergence of new witnesses who are telling their stories of physical abuse now that, as occurred in the United States of America and Ireland and Australia and Austria, initial wave of reports in the secular media about such abuses have been made public?

Take a page out of the self-serving playbook of emotional manipulation and misrepresentation that has been used by a prominent prelate in recent months?

That the witnesses are “mentally instable”?

That they are “priest-haters”?

That they are violating the precepts of the Eighth Commandment in coming forth now with their stories of abuse?

That they the devil has “buzzed” them into their ears and taken possession of their souls to a greater or lesser extent?

Although the indemnification of unrepentant and unreformed moral criminals who persist in their immoral behavior even after so-called “therapy” is not a crime against the Holy Faith, God does care about moral integrity just as much as He cares about doctrinal integrity. One cannot save his soul by persisting in a state of unrepentant Mortal Sin until the moment of his death. One cannot save his soul by reaffirming others in their commission of what are, in the objective moral order of things (leaving aside, as always, subjective judgment of another's soul to God alone), Mortal Sins or by making it possible for them to continue committing these sins by minimizing their horror or denying that such malefactors pose a real and immediate threat to souls that require them to be withdrawn from any kind of pastoral ministry for the rest of their lives as they seek to penance for their sins in some kind of monastery or cloister. Those who commit Mortal Sins must reform their lives in cooperation with the graces won for us by the shedding of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, and seek to do penance for their sins.

At the root of the worldwide scandal that has broken in conciliar circles, and that, because of fallen human nature, is not unknown in the Catholic catacombs in this time of apostasy and betrayal, is a failure to understand the horror of personal sin in general and a failure to recognize the those who are inclined to commit perverse acts in violation of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments are mentally ill, that priests or presbyters who engage in such acts must never be restored to pastoral ministry ever again. A true priest so afflicted can give glory to God and add grace the world every time he offers a true liturgy of the Catholic Church (the Immemorial Mass of Tradition or the of the Uniat Rites of the East). He can administer the sacraments to the sick and dying in situations of genuine emergency. A priest afflicted with the mental illness of perverted acts in violation of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, however, must never be put in what is to him the near occasions of sin and what is for the faithful a cause of great, demoralizing scandal that might cause some of those who are weaker from the Faith to fall from its practice entirely.

The conciliar “bishops” (and their predecessors in the Catholic Church) who played shell game with souls by moving around perverted priests and presbyters have shown themselves to be entirely bereft of any sense of the good of souls as they have tyrannically beaten down victims with the stick of clericalism and have sought to silence anyone and everyone who would dare question their protection of serial abuses of bodies and souls. Time and time again the conciliar “bishops” and their chancery factotums have sought to minimize their crimes, frequently making advertence to the claim that there is no more abuse in conciliar circles than is found elsewhere in society. This is a damnable effort at self-exculpation that flies in the face of what Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ taught us about those who dare put the innocence and purity of one of His little ones into question:

But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea. (Matthew 18: 6) 

There are nine ways in which one can be an accessory to the sins of others.

The conciliar “bishops,” including the architect of the worldwide cover-up that is now exploding right in his very face, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, have indeed been accessories to the multiple sins of others in most of the following ways to a greater or lesser extent, noting that some of the “bishops” themselves have been active participants in perverse sins against nature and actually approve of those sins as an expression of “love” (Thomas Gumbleton, a retired conciliar auxiliary "bishop" of Detroit, Michigan, and Rembert G. Weakland, O.S.B., the retired and disgraced conciliar “archbishop” of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, come to mind in this regard; see Weak In Mind, Weakest Yet In Faith):

• 1. By counsel.
• 2. By command.
• 3. By consent.
• 4. By provocation.
• 5. By praise or flattery of the evil done.
• 6. By silence.
• 7. By connivance.
• 8. By partaking.
• 9. By defense of the ill done.​

The late Father Enrique Rueda and the late Father Charles Fiore, O.P., amassed sheaves of documentation as early as the 1980s concerning the infestation of perverted clergy in both the secular and religious clergy of what I know now to be the counterfeit church of conciliarism. It was at the home of a layman in Virginia in February of 1987 (at a time I was speaking at the Washington Catholic Rendezvous) that I was given a look at this documentation in the presence of a true priest who was leaving the Salvatorian Fathers because of what he said to me was a pervert-friendly atmosphere there. (The priest in question, who is now in a Ecclesia Dei community, certainly suffered a great deal in his original community, although perhaps some of that suffering could be said to be a just punishment visited on him for being a die-hard fan of the incarnation of all evil in the world, the New York Yankees.) The documentation I reviewed was very thorough, although the newspaper editor, the late Alphonse J. Matt. Jr., to whom it had been sent was not ready, at least not at that time, to believe that the problems were that extensive, later changing his mind on the matter.

Yes, indeed, the problems were and are that extensive. They are worldwide in scope. They involve Ratzinger/Benedict himself:

A widening child sexual abuse inquiry in Europe has landed at the doorstep of Pope Benedict XVI, as a senior church official acknowledged Friday that a German archdiocese made “serious mistakes” in handling an abuse case while the pope served as its archbishop.

The archdiocese said that a priest accused of molesting boys was given therapy in 1980 and later allowed to resume pastoral duties, before committing further abuses and being prosecuted. Pope Benedict, who at the time headed the archdiocese of Munich and Freising, approved the priest’s transfer for therapy. A subordinate took full responsibility for allowing the priest to later resume pastoral work, the archdiocese said in a statement.

The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said he had no comment beyond the statement by the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising, which he said showed the “nonresponsibility” of the pope in the matter.

The expanding abuse inquiry had come ever closer to Benedict as new accusations in Germany surfaced almost daily since the first reports in January. On Friday the pope met with the chief bishop of Germany to discuss allegations emerging from church investigations and media reports.

Allegations of problems in the German church have already come close to the pope, whose brother, Monsignor Georg Ratzinger, 86, directed a choir connected to a boarding school where two former students have come forward with abuse claims. In an interview this week, Monsignor Ratzinger, who directed the choir from 1964 to 1994, said the accusations dated to before his tenure. He also apologized for slapping students.

At a news conference following a one-on-one meeting with Benedict on Friday, Archbishop Richard Zollitsch, the head of the German Bishops Conference, said the pope was “greatly upset” and “deeply moved” by the abuse allegations, and urged the German church to seek the truth and help the victims. He said he did not discuss Monsignor Ratzinger’s comments or the investigation into the choir school with the pope.

The meeting and news conference occurred before the statement from the Munich archdiocese.

Archbishop Zollitsch said the German church had vowed to investigate all allegations of abuse, encouraging victims to identify themselves even if the abuse happened decades ago.

In recent weeks, hundreds of alleged abuse victims have come forward.

“The cases are growing every day,” said Thomas Pfister, a lawyer appointed by the German church to investigate abuse cases in the Ettal monastery boarding school in Bavaria. He said more than 100 people had contacted him so far.

“Every day I receive e-mails from around the world from people who have been abused,” Mr. Pfister said, adding that the school had posted his email address on its web site to encourage this. “There has been a very big silence, now they want to have a voice.”

Experts said the scandals could undermine Benedict’s moral authority, especially because they cut particularly close to the pope himself. As head of the Vatican’s main doctrinal arm, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he led Vatican investigations into abuse for four years before assuming the papacy in 2005.

“What is at stake, and at great risk, is Benedict’s central project for the ‘re-Christianization’ of Christendom, his desire to have Europe return to its Christian roots,” said David Gibson, the author of a biography of Benedict and a religion commentator for Politicsdaily.com. “But if the root itself is seen as rotten, then his influence will be badly comprised.”

When the American church sex abuse scandal broke in Boston in 2002, Pope Benedict — then Cardinal Ratzinger — was among the Vatican officials who made statements that minimized the problem and accused the media of blowing it out of proportion. But as the abuse case files landed on his desk at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, his colleagues said he was deeply disturbed by what he learned. On his first visit to the United States as Pope, Benedict met with abuse survivors from Boston and said he was “deeply ashamed” by priests who had harmed children. But victims advocates accuse the pope of doing little to discipline the bishops who permitted abusers to continue serving in ministry.

The case in Munich, which was brought to the attention of the diocese by the daily Süddeutsche Zeitung, was a result of “serious mistakes,” the archdiocese said in the statement. The priest from Essen, “despite allegations of sexual abuse, and in spite of a conviction — was repeatedly assigned work in the sphere of pastoral care by the then-Vicar General Gerhard Gruber,” who worked under Benedict, at the time Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger. (Church Abuse Scandal in Germany Edges Closer to Benedict; see also Benedict under fire for priest transfer, letter; see also Benedict Remains Silent as Abuse Allegations Hit Close to Home.) 

These charges are far, far different than those discussed two days ago in Blind to Truth, Blind to the Horror of Personal Sin. Ratzinger/Benedict may or may not have known about the abuses of school children in Bavaria when he taught in Regensburg and when he was the conciliar "archbishop" of the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising. And, quite unlike the case of the usher in the Vatican who was running a ring of perverts, something that it is not reasonable to expect that Ratzinger/Benedict had any knowledge of at all, it is indeed very reasonable to believe that the then “Archbishop” Joseph Ratzinger did indeed have full knowledge of the transfer of the perverted priest, Peter Hullermann, from the Diocese of Essen, Germany, that had been supervised by his own chancery office. Father Federico Lombardi is insulting the intelligence of Catholics worldwide if he expects them to believe that the vicar general of the archdiocese was solely responsible for the move.

Anyone who has written in criticism of Roger Mahony, Francis George, Thomas O'Brien, Rembert Weakland, Bernard Law, Richard Lennon, Robert Banks, William Murphy, Thomas Daily, Howard Hubbard, Matthew Clark, Joseph Imesch, Daniel Ryan, Raymond Hunthausen, J. Keith Symons, Andrew O'Connell, Thomas Dupre, Patrick Ziemann, Edward Egan, Louis Gelineau,  John McGann, John O'Connor, Theodore McCarrick, Joseph Bernardin, Daniel Pilarczyk, George Niederauer, William Levada, Robert Brom, Tod Brown, Joseph Adamec, Paul Loverde and the whole cast of Irish “bishops” whose corrupt behavior has scandalized the Catholic faithful cannot remain intellectually honest and now attempt to indemnify Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI by means of the weak, lame, pathetic explanation of “nonresponsibility” given by Father Federico Lombardi and the conciliar authorities in Germany, eager to throw Father Gerhard Gruber under a bus on the Autobahn.

Ratzinger/Benedict knows nothing?

Go tell that to the late John Banner who portrayed the fictional Sergeant Hans Schultz on Hogan's Heroes (I hear nothing, I see nothing, I know noooooothing!).

If Ratzinger/Benedict knows nothing about what happened when he was the conciliar “archbishop” of Munich and Freising and when he personally supervised a world-wide cover-up to protect perverted clergy (while lifting not one finger to help whistle blower presbyters such as James Haley and others who been censured for their fingering their perverted brethren), then he is as blind to the truth about his own actions as a putative bishop and cardinal and pope of the Catholic Church as he has been about the nature of doctrinal truth and thus of the very nature of God Himself.

Why is it that Roger Mahony and Francis George and Richard Lennon and Robert Brom and George Niederauer and William Levada, et al., remain in power in the conciliar church despite their protection of perverted clergy?

Because Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has willed it so, that’s why.

Ratzinger/Benedict has also willed to keep in place as the conciliar Archpriest of the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore one Bernard "Cardinal" Law, who still exercises a fair degree of influence in the appointment of American "bishops." Ah, yes, I forgot. The “pope” of tradition. I forgot.

What is particularly astounding about the scandals to have broken in Germany is the fact that Ratzinger/Benedict is expressing his “sorrow” for what happened in his home country to the president of the conciliar “bishops” conference there, “Archbishop” Robert Zollitsch, to whom Ratzinger/Benedict has not utter any public word of correction concerning his blasphemous statement made on Holy Saturday last year, that is, on Saturday, April 11, 2009, that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ did not die on the wood of Holy Cross in atonement for our sins. This is just astounding. Two men who defect from the Catholic Faith in many ways consult with each other concerning scandals caused by those who do not take seriously the horror of personal sin and who think that those steeped in unrepentant acts of perversion can be sent back to what they believe is a legitimate form of “pastoral ministry.” Ah, yes, I forgot. The
pope” of tradition. I forgot.

The casual, blasé attitude of the late Karol Wojtyla/John Paul and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and their “conciliar” bishops about the sweeping nature of the scandals that have broken into full public view in the past eight years (after many of these scandals having been reported in The Wanderer and National Catholic Reporter in the 1990s) and their constant enabling of perverted “bishops” and priests and presbyters stands in stark contrast to that Saint Peter Damian expressed to Pope Leo IX in the year 1049 A.D. and in very stark contrast with the prescription for the vice of perversion that was prescribed by Pope Saint Pius V in Horrendum illud scelus, August 30, 1568:

That horrible crime, on account of which corrupt and obscene cities were destroyed by fire through divine condemnation, causes us most bitter sorrow and shocks our mind, impelling us to repress such a crime with the greatest possible zeal.

Quite opportunely the Fifth Lateran Council [1512-1517] issued this decree: "Let any member of the clergy caught in that vice against nature . . . be removed from the clerical order or forced to do penance in a monastery" (chap. 4, X, V, 31). So that the contagion of such a grave offense may not advance with greater audacity by taking advantage of impunity, which is the greatest incitement to sin, and so as to more severely punish the clerics who are guilty of this nefarious crime and who are not frightened by the death of their souls, we determine that they should be handed over to the severity of the secular authority, which enforces civil law.

Therefore, wishing to pursue with the greatest rigor that which we have decreed since the beginning of our pontificate, we establish that any priest or member of the clergy, either secular or regular, who commits such an execrable crime, by force of the present law be deprived of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical benefit, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, let him be immediately delivered to the secular authority to be put to death, as mandated by law as the fitting punishment for laymen who have sunk into this abyss. 

I am not suggesting the revival of this penalty, only pointing out the fact that there was far less sanguine view of the horror of sins against nature in the past than has been exhibited by the conciliar “popes” and their “bishops” in the past forty years or so. So many souls have been devastated as a result of scandals that should never have come to light if complaints had been taken seriously and the perverted malefactors sent away to truly Catholic mental facilities where they could be treated for their mental illness and then sent to a monastery to spend the rest of their lives in prayer.

Instead, of course, the conciliarists have recruited those afflicted with the mental illness of perverted inclinations (for a review of the fact that such affliction is mental illness, please see Statement Of The Catholic Medical Association) and protected and promoted despite their recidivist crimes. An entire ethos that is sympathetic to—if not supportive of—perversity has been created in the conciliar structures, up to and including the art, architecture, music, vestments and images found in conciliar church buildings, to say nothing of conferences funded by the contributions made by ordinary Catholics to their parishes and their dioceses that promote the agenda of perversion under one guise or another. Most, although not all, of those who have been promoting the agenda of perversion, which is “mainstreamed” in many conciliar schools and “religious education” programs under the slogans of “diversity” and “tolerance” and “inclusion,” remain in perfectly good standing in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism (as do Catholics in public life who support baby-killing, whether by chemical or surgical means, under cover of the civil law).

No number of appeals made by apparatchiks inside the conciliar Vatican to the necessity of protecting the good names of the accused and of the victims can justify reassigning who suffer from the mental illness of perverted inclinations to other parishes. While it is certainly true that measures must be taken to protect the innocent, it is also true that the faithful have been discouraged by chancery offices worldwide from registering complaints and presenting evidence. It has been mostly, although not entirely, the case that the officials in the conciliar Vatican have conducted investigations only after the victims, having been stonewalled and intimidated by the men they believe to be “bishops” and their chancery officials, have made their cases public.

These cases became public after it was proved from a review of diocesan records that known, proved perverted priests/presbyters were transferred over and over and over again without the faithful ever being warned whatsoever. Legal deposition after legal deposition has proved this to be the case, and the priest in the Diocese of Essen, Peter Hullermannn, was reassigned after chancery officials in the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising were convinced that the man was guilty of abuse and had sent him for “therapy.” There was no thought that such men must never be reassigned, that they are threats to themselves and others. There was simply a desire to protect the institutional reputation and to use clericalism to browbeat the victims. Truly shameful

The American “bishops” were forced to confront the nest of corruption that they created when lawsuits were filed. The Irish “bishops” did so only after the report field by Circuit Court Judge Yvonne Murphy. The German “bishops” are doing so at present because of bad publicity, which was cited by a “monsignor,”" Frank Caldwell, in the Diocese of Rockville Centre in grand jury testimony as the reason that a conciliar pastor, “Monsignor” Charles H. “Bud” Ribaudo, was removed from Saint Dominic’s Church in Oyster Bay, New York, even though they had known about allegations against him for years made by a presbyter. The faithful have been put at risk by the repeated protection offered to perverted members of the conciliar clergy, being asked thereafter to fund the over $2 billion in settlements that have been paid out those who were victimized by those practitioners of moral perversion. Any claim that that officials in the conciliar Vatican have been concerned principally about due process, which is, of course, a very important consideration, is secondary to the desire for institutional self-preservation as the crimes of perverts are minimized and as the culture of perversion continues to be protected the liturgy and catechesis of so many conciliar parishes worldwide.

There are some who just want matters of this sort to “go away.” Matters of this sort do not just “go away.” The faithful must be warned about the wolves who are out to devour their immortal souls. While we must pray and always be mindful of our need to do penance for our own sins as the totally consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, it is one thing to have true sorrow for our own sins and to seek to make reparation for them; it is quite another for men posing as shepherds, whether true or false, to turn a blind eye to the horror of personal sin being committed with their approbation as they seek to silence anyone who attempts to cry out them in private, fulfilling all the precepts of the Eighth Commandment, before understanding that these words of Saint Thomas Aquinas apply in circumstances of documented public scandal after private entreaties have failed to correct scandalous behavior:

"It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly."

"Article 2: Fraternal correction is a matter of obligation (precept) out of charity for the sinner. And if the order of fraternal correction has been observed (beginning with private admonitions until there is no other recourse for the sake of the faith than to publicly proclaim the prelate), to do so for the sake of the faith can be meritorious." (Saint Thomas Aquinas) 

The loss of even a single soul, no less many, to the Faith as a result of scandalous behavior by clergy, whether validly ordained or not, and by those under their authority is indeed a matter of the Faith. God is not sanguine about the loss of a single soul. Neither is His Most Blessed Mother.

Pope Saint Gregory the Great, whose feast we celebrated yesterday, made it clear that we must not conceal the truth about public scandals:

“It is better that scandals arise than that the truth be concealed.”

We must actively cooperate with the graces that God sends us through the loving hands of Our Lady to save our souls. In like manner, soldiers in the Army of Christ the King must speak out to confront scandalous situations, recognizing, of course, that God alone is the sole judge of the subjective state of the souls of others and that some of us ourselves are not free of the guilt of speaking and acting in scandalous ways in the past for which we have much to make reparation.

The situation afflicting the counterfeit church of conciliarism is the result of the effects of Original Sin and Actual Sins upon individual souls. It is also, however, the result of the deliberate creation of an ecclesiastical and liturgical culture that denigrates the horror of personal sin and minimizes the responsibility before God and man of those who persist in grave sins against nature unrepentantly while in some cases actually glorifying the sin itself as an expression of “love.”

This may not be “Waterloo for Benedict” as the conciliar troops line up to claim that the members of the anti-Catholic secular media have exaggerated the case in question and that they are out to “destroy” the “traditional” “pope.” Lame excuses and blame-shifting can never erase the reality of the pro-perversity culture that has been created and sustained by many of the lords of conciliarism and which the conciliar "pope" refuses to correct.

Let me close by repeating what I wrote two days ago now:

We are indeed living in a period of profound chastisement where the devil is using the lack of faith and the bad example of Catholics all across and up and down the vast expanse of the ecclesiastical divide to scandalize and divide Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

The scandals afflicting the counterfeit church of conciliarism did not occur overnight. Many occurred years ago during the reign of true bishops. Granted. It is nevertheless true that the lords of conciliarism have proven themselves to be blind to the horror of personal sin because they are blind to the truth of God's very own identity and nature.

We cannot be blind to the truth about the horror of our own sins, each of which wounded Our Blessed Lord and Saviour once in time and wounds the Church Militant on earth today. We must be brutally honest about our sins and the harm that they have done to our souls and to the Mystical Body of Christ, earnestly seeking to live more and more penitentially, especially in these middle days of Lent, seeking to offer up all of our prayers and penances and physical sufferings and fastings and humiliations that come our way in a spirit of reparation to God through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. We are very much responsible for the malodorous state of the Church Militant on earth and the world-at-large.

To Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart belongs the triumph that will vanquish the lords of Modernism once and for all.

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex! 

Our Lady of the Rosary, for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saints Cosmas and Damian, pray for us.

Fall Guys Are Not Usually Stand-Up Guys

April 21, 2010

Former President Richard Milhous Nixon was, despite his protestations to the contrary in a nationally televised press conference at Walt Disney World in Orlando, Florida, on Saturday, November 17, 1973 (which I was listening to on the radio while approaching Little Rock, Arkansas, in my 1972 Chevrolet Nova, taking an overnight at a Sheraton hotel before continuing on from Albany, New York, where I rented an apartment in preparation of my commencing doctoral studies at the State University of New York at Albany two months later, to College Station, Texas, to pick up our six year-old beagle, Blanky, from my brother before proceeding down to Harlingen to visit my parents for a week--got all that?), indeed a crook. (See the “I'm not a crook” segment of that November 17, 1973, press conference.)

Who said so?

 Richard Nixon himself said so, if, that is, the late Alexander Meigs Haig, Jr., Nixon’s last White House Chief of Staff and the “As of now, I'm in charge here, in the White House” Secretary of State of the United States of American under the late President Ronald Wilson Reagan from January 20, 1981, to July 5, 1982, is to be believed:

He [Alexander Haig] was brutally candid about his own run for office and his subsequent distaste for political life. “Not being a politician, I think I can say this: The life of a politician in America is sleaze,” he told the authors of “Nixon: An Oral History.”

“I didn’t realize it until I started to run for office,” he said. “But there is hardly a straight guy in the business. As Nixon always said to me — and he took great pride in it — ‘Al, I never took a dollar. I had somebody else do it.’ ” (Alexander M. Haig Jr. Dies at 85, p 3)

A lot of people took for the “fall” for Richard Nixon from 1973-1975. Among those who went to jail because of "Watergate" related crimes were former White House Chief of Staff Harry Robins Haldeman, former White House Domestic Adviser John Ehrlichman, and former Attorney Generals of the United States of America John Mitchell and Richard Kleindienst (not to mention, among many others, “Watergate” conspirators George Gordon Liddy and Charles Colson). Among the major “Watergate” players, however, only one, John Mitchell, who participated actively in the planning and execution of the break-ins of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate Hotel complex in Washington, District of Columbia, that resulted in the arrest of the “Watergate burglars” by security guard Frank Wills on the evening of Saturday, June 20, 1972, remained silent to the point of his death on November 9, 1988. John Mitchell, who found himself caught up in what he called the “White House horrors,” alone played his role as the silent “fall guy” until the very end. Most of the others wrote books about their “Watergate” experiences.

“Fall guys” aren't usually “stand up” guys, however. They usually fall by the wayside sooner or later, refusing to take the blame, in whole or in part, for the misdeeds of others.

Case-in-point: the elderly Monsignor Gerhard Gruber of the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising in Germany, who was fingered by officials in the conciliar Vatican and in his own chancery office as the “culprit” who reassigned a known clerical abuser, Father Peter Hullermann, a priest of the Diocese of Essen, Germany, while Joseph Ratzinger was then the conciliar “archbishop” of Munich and Freising. It has been noted in several articles on this site that it is very plausible to contend that Ratzinger did indeed have direct knowledge of the case of Father Hullermann and that he personally approved the latter’s assignment to parish work in a meeting at which he presided on January 15, 1980. This is just not idle speculation. Monsignor Gruber is evidently upset that he has had to take for the “fall” for his “pope:”

Catholic Church officials assigned full responsibility for the reassignment of a known pedophilic priest to retired vicar general Gerhard Gruber who served as deputy to Joseph Ratzinger when he was archbishop. Gruber is now challenging a Church statement that he "acted on his own authority," a claim he says was never discussed with him.

The emergency plan was hastily assembled in the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising on the evening of March 11, a Thursday. The Süddeutsche Zeitung newspaper had exposed the scandal surrounding pedophile priest Peter H., and the affair over sexual abuse in the church was getting dangerously close to the pope.

Peter H., a vicar from the western German city of Essen who had molested boys on several occasions, was sent to Munich in 1980, where he was assigned to work as a pastor again. As a result, he was able to abuse even more boys. The archbishop and chairman of the diocesan council, which approved H.'s appointment, was Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI.

Ratzinger also chaired a meeting on Jan. 15, 1980, in which the pedophile priest's living arrangements and therapy were discussed. He must have been familiar with H.'s criminal past. Because of this, the diocese has, in recent weeks, left no stone unturned in its effort to explain why the current pope could not be held accountable for H.'s continued service in his diocese.

That effort has been supported by documents found in the diocese records office that related to H., and that were signed by someone else at the time: the loyal Vicar General Gerhard Gruber, Ratzinger's deputy during his time as archbishop.

Apparently no one on the crisis team objected to the idea of taking Pope Benedict "out of the firing line" and using Gruber, 81, as a scapegoat instead. On the morning of March 12, while the press office was busy drafting a statement in which Gruber was given the full blame for H.'s appointment to serve as a pastor, and that included Gruber's personal apology, a church official was badgering the retired priest on the phone.

But Gruber, who felt put under pressure, later confided in theologian friends. He told them that he had been emphatically "asked" to assume full responsibility for the affair, and that church officials had promptly faxed him a copy of the statement and instructed him to make any changes he deemed necessary.

'Incorrect Decisions'

According to the statement released by the archdiocese, Ratzinger was partly responsible for making the decision to accept H.'s appointment. "Notwithstanding this decision," however, H. was assigned "by the then vicar general" to assist in pastoral care, without restriction, in a Munich parish. The statement also read: "Gruber assumes full responsibility for the incorrect decisions." A spokesman for the archdiocese later added that Gruber had "acted on his own authority" in the case of Peter H.

Gruber’s friends say that the old man was only familiar with parts of the statement, that he was apparently being used as a scapegoat and that he was also under additional emotional pressure. To everyone's surprise, Gruber wrote an open letter in which he qualified the archdiocese's statement, writing that he did not sign any documents over which he had no influence. He also noted that he was "very upset" about the "manner in which the incidents were portrayed" by the archdiocese. "And the phrase 'acted on his own authority' also wasn't discussed with me," he wrote.

The archdiocese was unwilling to comment on the accusations, except to state it continued to believe that the former vicar general had acted on his own authority in the case of Peter H., and that he had admitted to having made mistakes. Gruber has gone on a trip to recuperate from “weeks that have been very stressful for me.” His loyalty is greatly appreciated in Munich. Archbishop Reinhard Marx, Gruber writes, has sent him his best wishes and “expressed his appreciation for my ‘participation’.” (Catholic Abuse Scandal: Was Munich's Vicar General Forced to Serve as Ratzinger's Scapegoat?; see also Priest says he was pressurised into taking blame for pope.) 

Monsignor Gruber isn’t the only one who's been thrown under the conciliar bus to seek to indemnify Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. Dario “Cardinal” Castrillon Hoyos, who commended a conciliar “bishop” in France, Pierre Pican, for refusing to turn over a presbyter to the civil authorities (see Dario Castrillon Hoyos, Meet Pope Saint Pius V),  is seeking to protect himself and the current “pontiff” by blaming the refusal to hand over clerical abusers for criminal prosecution by the civil authorities on none other than Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II (“Canonizing” A Man Who Protected Moral Derelicts):

Meanwhile, according to the Spanish daily La Verdad , Colombian cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos said at a weekend conference in Murcia that Pope John Paul approved the policy of not reporting to the police clerical sex abuse crimes.

In a September 2001 letter, recently published by the French Catholic publication Golias, Cardinal Hoyos wrote to French bishop Pierre Pican to congratulate him for not reporting an abuser priest. Earlier that year, Bishop Pican received a suspended three-month sentence for not reporting serial abuser Fr René Bissy, who was eventually given an 18-year prison sentence for child sex abuse crimes between 1989 and 1996.

Speaking in Murcia on Saturday, Cardinal Hoyos confirmed the text of the letter, adding also that Pope John Paul had seen it and “authorised me to send it to all the bishops”.

Four months earlier, in 2001, Pope John Paul assigned judicial responsibility for certain “grave” sins (including child sex abuse) to the Congregation For The Doctrine Of The Faith. It was following this that the then prefect of the CDF, Cardinal Ratzinger, wrote to all Catholic bishops advising that they refer all credible cases of clerical child sex abuse to him. That letter was accompanied by another one, also in Latin, instructing that this be kept secret.

If Cardinal Hoyos’s claim is true it would suggest that Pope John Paul’s 2001 directive was intended to encourage a policy of cover-up. (Priest says he was pressurised into taking blame for pope.) 

Fall guys aren't usually stand-up guys. This is true in politics. This is true in commerce. This is true in professional sports. This is true in ecclesiastical matters. 

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI acted as he did in 1980 with Father Peter Hullermann because he has a casual, dismissive attitude concerning the horror of personal sin.

Ratzinger/Benedict has said he has “nothing against” those who go to what they think is Holy Mass in the conciliar structures “on occasion,” meaning that he has little regard for the Third Commandment and for one of the six Precepts of the Church. (CARDINAL RATZINGER ON THE FUTURE OF CHRISTIANITY).

Ratzinger/Benedict’s lack of regard for the Third Commandment is but a logical consequence for the lack of regard that he has for the First and Second Commandments as he has, as Benedict XVI, personally esteemed the symbols of five false religions with his priestly hands and has said that “Christians and Jews pray to the same Lord” and has called mosques and synagogues and even a mountain in Japan, Mount Hiei, atop which the Buddhists worship their devils as “sacred” places.

One who can so flagrantly violate the First and Second Commandments with such utter impunity demonstrates in the objective order of things, leaving aside subjective culpability solely to God Himself, Who alone knows the interior dispositions of souls, that he does not understand Who God is or what He has revealed to us through His true Church.

This lack of understanding of the identity of God flows logically from Ratzinger/Benedict’s lack of understanding of the nature of God and His Revelation, believing that the expressions of dogmatic truth are contingent on the historical circumstances in which they were formulated. One who gets such basic things wrong is not going to have much of a real sense of the horror of personal sin and how to respond to it appropriately, which is one of the reasons that Ratzinger/Benedict and his band of conciliar “bishops” have sought to protect perverted priests/presbyters time and time again until their cover-ups and abuse of power made headlines that could no longer be ignored.

Ratzinger/Benedict has a high regard for “theologians” who are steeped in error, believing that even those who deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ continue “believing in a Christian manner” (see Cardinal Ratzinger).

Does Our Lord have such a “high regard” for those who deny His Sacred Divinity?

Is He sanguine about error and defections from the Faith?

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI believes, blasphemously, that Holy Mother Church is a “sinner church,” not the spotless, immaculate Mystical Bride of her Invisible Head, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. He believes in a “church” that has no claim to any temporal rights whatsoever, placing himself in quite some contrast with our true popes, including Pope Pius XI:

“Let me go one step further. From today’s crisis, a Church will emerge tomorrow that will have lost a great deal. She will be small and, to a large extent, will have to start from the beginning. She will no longer be able to fill many of the buildings created in her period of great splendor. Because of the smaller number of her followers, she will lose many of her privileges in society. Contrary to what has happened until now, she will present herself much more as a community of volunteers ....

"As a small community, she will demand much more from the initiative of each of her members and she will certainly also acknowledge new forms of ministry and will raise up to the priesthood proven Christians who have other jobs. In many smaller communities, respectively in social groups with some affinity, the normal care of souls will take place in this way ....

"There will be an interiorized Church, which neither takes advantage of its political mandate nor flirts with the left or the right. This will be achieved with effort because the process of crystallization and clarification will demand great exertion. It will make her poor and a Church of the little people .... All this will require time. The process will be slow and painful ....

“From this interiorized and simplified Church, a great force will pour out. The men of an [artificially] planned world will feel unspeakably isolated. When God will seem to have totally disappeared for them, they will experience a complete and horrible poverty. And then they will discover the small community of those who believe as something entirely new ....

"Her [the Church’s] real crisis has hardly started. We still have to go through some great storms .... Certainly she will never again be the dominant force in society to the degree that she was until recently.  (Fr. Ratzinger's progressivist plan to change the face of the Church.)

There exists an institution able to safeguard the sanctity of the law of nations. This institution is a part of every nation; at the same time it is above all nations. She enjoys, too, the highest authority, the fullness of the teaching power of the Apostles. Such an institution is the Church of Christ. She alone is adapted to do this great work, for she is not only divinely commissioned to lead mankind, but moreover, because of her very make-up and the constitution which she possesses, by reason of her age-old traditions and her great prestige, which has not been lessened but has been greatly increased since the close of the War, cannot but succeed in such a venture where others assuredly will fail. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

Has Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI taken back anything that he has ever written?

Anything?

No, he has, “in everything that is essential,” “remained identical?”

Who says so? 

He does, that’s who:

I've been taken apart various times: in my first phase as professor and in the intermediate phase, during my first phase as Cardinal and in the successive phase. Now comes a new division. Of course circumstances and situations and even people influence you because you take on different responsibilities. Let's say that my basic personality and even my basic vision have grown, but in everything that is essential I have remained identical. I'm happy that certain aspects that weren't noticed at first are now coming into the open. (Interview with Bayerische Rundfunk (ARD), ZDF, Deutsche Welle and Vatican Radio) 

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict is trying to get others to take the “fall” for his own enabling of clerical abusers in Germany and as the prefect of the conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith even though he knew full well how the conciliar “bishops” of the world were protecting priests and presbyters, even though he knew full well that victims were being browbeaten and intimidated by chancery officials, even though he knew full well that civil crimes were going unreported and molesters were being placed back to what he considered to be “priestly ministry” who had demonstrated themselves to be mortal threats to the bodily and spiritual welfare of Catholics attached to the conciliar structures.

Five years of apostasy.

Five years of sacrilege.

Five years of blasphemy, including, as mentioned just above, Ratzinger/Benedict's esteeming the symbols of five false religions with his own priestly hands in the John Paul Cultural Center in Washington, District of Columbia, on Thursday, April 17, 2008. Ratzinger/Benedict listened patiently as the enabler of clerical abusers, including Rembert George Weakland himself, Richard Sklba, read the following blasphemous descriptions of these false religions:

A silver menorah with seven lights. It symbolizes the perennial validity of God’s covenant of peace. Silver is frequently used in the Eastern European Jewish tradition. The menorah recalls the seven branched lamp stand used in the temple in Jerusalem.

A small, finely crafted edition of the Qur’an, in green leather and gold leaf edging. The Qur’an is the revered word of God, proclaiming God’s message of peace. Green is the traditional Islamic color.

A metallic cube representing the Jain principles of non-violence and respect for a diversity of viewpoints as a way to peace through self-discipline and dialogue.

The sacred syllable Om on a brass incense burner. Om is the primordial sound of creation itself, by which God’s liberating peace is made known. Bronze or brass are widely used for Hindu liturgical ornaments. Incense sticks are used in ritual worship among Hindu believers.

A bronze bell cast in Korea. In various Buddhist cultures, the sound of the bell demarcates the times of meditation, which leads to inner peace and enlightenment. (USCCB - (Office of Media Relations) - Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Jain, Hindu Leaders To Meet With Pope Benedict XVI; see video of this blasphemous offense to God by clicking See for yourself, April 17, 2008 - 6:15 p.m. - Interreligious Gathering.)

Some are rejoicing now that it has been revealed that this apostate and blasphemer posing as a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter offers the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition in his private chapel in the Apostolic Palace when he is not offending God by presiding over the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo worship service publicly.

What does this prove?

Nothing.

Nothing whatsoever.

It certainly does not prove that Ratzinger/Benedict is trying to “restore the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church.”

Many Modernist bishops and priests at the begriming of the Twentieth Century offered the fully unreformed Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, but they did not have the Catholic Faith. The Immemorial Mass of Tradition is not about one's aesthetic “likes.” It is about giving the Most Blessed Trinity fitting worship as the Holy Faith itself is conveyed flawlessly, without any defect or ambiguity whatsoever. And that this heretofore “secret” has been public now is to help rally the
“traditionalist” troops, especially those in the Society of Saint Pius X, around him now that he finds himself under such siege in the secular media for his self-made problems.

How is it an exercise in the “restoration of the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church” to accept a menorah as a symbol of the “perennial validity of God's covenant of peace”?

How is it an exercise in the “restoration of the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church” to accept a copy of the Koran, which blasphemes Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by denying His Sacred Divinity and is heretical in that it does that God is a Trinity of Persons, which was represented by the American conciliar "bishops" as “the revered word of God, proclaiming God’s message of peace”?

Would Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, God in the very Flesh, say what Ratzinger/Benedict said in May of 2008 when he, the false “pontiff,” received yet another copy of the Koran, this time in the Apostolic Palace in the Vatican, called this work of blasphemy a “dear and precious book.”

Would Our Lord speak in such a way about a book that denies His Sacred Divinity?

Restoring the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church?

How is it an exercise in the "restoration of the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church" to accept the “metallic cube” representing the principles of Jain?

How is it an exercise in the "restoration of the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church" to accept a brass incense burner (talk about a grain of incense!) with the word “Om” on it in order to “esteem” the Hindu religion?

How is it an exercise in the “restoration of the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church” to accept a bell used in the false worship of Buddhism?

How is it an exercise in the “restoration of the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church” for a putative Roman Pontiff to call a mosque, a place of diabolical worship, or a mountain revered by the devil-worshipers known as Buddhists as "sacred"?

How is it an exercise in the “restoration of the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church” for an alleged Successor of Saint Peter to enter into synagogues and to treat the false, blasphemous religion of Talmudic Judaism as a valid means of sanctification and salvation for its adherents?

Was Bishop George Hay wrong when he wrote that the Catholic Church's attitude about the places of false worship, including the synagogue, will always be the same?

Was Pope Pius XI wrong to insist on the same doctrine?

From this passage the learned translators of the Rheims New Testament, in their note, justly observe, "That, in matters of religion, in praying, hearing their sermons, presence at their service, partaking of their sacraments, and all other communicating with them in spiritual things, it is a great and damnable sin to deal with them." And if this be the case with all in general, how much more with those who are well instructed and better versed in their religion than others? For their doing any of these things must be a much greater crime than in ignorant people, because they know their duty better. (Bishop George Hay ,The Laws of God Forbidding All Communication in Religion With Those of a False Religion.)

The spirit of Christ, which dictated the Holy Scriptures, and the spirit which animates and guides the Church of Christ, and teaches her all truth, is the same; and therefore in all ages her conduct on this point has been uniformly the same as what the Holy Scripture teaches. She has constantly forbidden her children to hold any communication, in religious matters, with those who are separated from her communion; and this she has sometimes done under the most severe penalties. In the apostolical canons, which are of very ancient standing, and for the most part handed down from the apostolical age, it is thus decreed: "If any bishop, or priest, or deacon, shall join in prayers with heretics, let him be suspended from Communion". (Can. 44)

Also, "If any clergyman or laic shall go into the synagogue of the Jews, or the meetings of heretics, to join in prayer with them, let him be deposed, and deprived of communion". (Can. 63) (Bishop George Hay, (The Laws of God Forbidding All Communication in Religion With Those of a False Religion.)

This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ. Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise? For here there is question of defending revealed truth. Jesus Christ sent His Apostles into the whole world in order that they might permeate all nations with the Gospel faith, and, lest they should err, He willed beforehand that they should be taught by the Holy Ghost: has then this doctrine of the Apostles completely vanished away, or sometimes been obscured, in the Church, whose ruler and defense is God Himself? If our Redeemer plainly said that His Gospel was to continue not only during the times of the Apostles, but also till future ages, is it possible that the object of faith should in the process of time become so obscure and uncertain, that it would be necessary to-day to tolerate opinions which are even incompatible one with another? If this were true, we should have to confess that the coming of the Holy Ghost on the Apostles, and the perpetual indwelling of the same Spirit in the Church, and the very preaching of Jesus Christ, have several centuries ago, lost all their efficacy and use, to affirm which would be blasphemy. But the Only-begotten Son of God, when He commanded His representatives to teach all nations, obliged all men to give credence to whatever was made known to them by "witnesses preordained by God," and also confirmed His command with this sanction: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned." These two commands of Christ, which must be fulfilled, the one, namely, to teach, and the other to believe, cannot even be understood, unless the Church proposes a complete and easily understood teaching, and is immune when it thus teaches from all danger of erring. In this matter, those also turn aside from the right path, who think that the deposit of truth such laborious trouble, and with such lengthy study and discussion, that a man's life would hardly suffice to find and take possession of it; as if the most merciful God had spoken through the prophets and His Only-begotten Son merely in order that a few, and those stricken in years, should learn what He had revealed through them, and not that He might inculcate a doctrine of faith and morals, by which man should be guided through the whole course of his moral life. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.) 

These brief passages are absolute, unconditional condemnations of the beliefs and practices of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. The passage from Pope Pius XI's Mortalium Animos is also a condemnation of the belief held by many, although not all, traditionally minded Catholics yet attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, that it is necessary to come to a “correct” understanding of the documents of the “Second” Vatican Council, that these documents have been “misunderstood” in the name of “spirit of Vatican II.”

Wrong!

Pope Pius XI made it abundantly clear that the Catholic Church “proposes a complete and easily understood teaching.” Can there be any clearer statement that the confusion caused by the “Second” Vatican Council and its aftermath is not a work of the Catholic Church but of the Master of Lies and the very Prince of Darkness himself?

Those who contend that "Pope" Benedict XVI is trying to uncover the “true” meaning of  the “Second” Vatican Council must contend with simple Catholic truth, that it is never necessary to try “uncover” that which is clear and precise, the expression of Catholic truth:

These two commands of Christ, which must be fulfilled, the one, namely, to teach, and the other to believe, cannot even be understood, unless the Church proposes a complete and easily understood teaching, and is immune when it thus teaches from all danger of erring. In this matter, those also turn aside from the right path, who think that the deposit of truth such laborious trouble, and with such lengthy study and discussion, that a man's life would hardly suffice to find and take possession of it; as if the most merciful God had spoken through the prophets and His Only-begotten Son merely in order that a few, and those stricken in years, should learn what He had revealed through them, and not that He might inculcate a doctrine of faith and morals, by which man should be guided through the whole course of his moral life. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.) 

That conciliarists are still arguing amongst themselves about the “true” meaning of the “Second” Vatican Council is, as noted just before, a manifest indication that that robber baron council was not the work of the Catholic Church, she who can never give us anything obscure, unclear or in the least ambiguous. As for the laughable, absurd contention made by “Bishop” Nickless that there is “no difference” between the “pre-Vatican II” and “post-Vatican II” periods, please see the compendium that I have provided in Ratzinger's War Against Catholicism and Not So "Upright" After All.

How can the “ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church” be restored by a man who rejects the Social Reign of Christ the King and endorses time and time again the condemned falsehood of “separation of Church and State” as he extols the heresy of “religious liberty,” praising the nonexistent ability of one false religion after another to “contribute” to the “building” of a “better world”? (See (see Urbanely Accepting Evil,  Respect Those Who Break the First Commandment? Respect Those Who Break the Fifth Commandment,  L'Osservatore Del Naturalista, A "Blessing" on a Murderer and His Work, Figures of Antichrist Applauding Each Other, and Working for the Nobel Prize From Hell). 

Anyone possessed of the sensus Catholicus knows that none of these blasphemous actions and/or heresies are an exercise in the “restoration of the ecclesiastical traditions of the Catholic Church,” that each of these blasphemous actions is offensive to the honor and majesty and glory of God, that they demand our public acts of reparation as they represent, objectively speaking, scandalous violations of the First and Second Commandments.

That which is false, that which is repugnant in the sight of the Most Blessed Trinity can never serve as the foundation of any kind of "restoration" of the Church Militant on earth.

That which is false, that which is repugnant in the sight of the Most Blessed Trinity can never be mixed with a “little bit of truth” and a “little bit” of alleged liturgical” “decorum” to serve as the foundation of any kind of “restoration” of the Church Militant on earth. Truth mixed with error is all error.

Was Pope Gregory XVI wrong when he wrote in Singulari Nos, May 25, 1834, that the Catholic Church can never be stained with the slightest taint of error?

As for the rest, We greatly deplore the fact that, where the ravings of human reason extend, there is somebody who studies new things and strives to know more than is necessary, against the advice of the apostle. There you will find someone who is overconfident in seeking the truth outside the Catholic Church, in which it can be found without even a light tarnish of error. Therefore, the Church is called, and is indeed, a pillar and foundation of truth. You correctly understand, venerable brothers, that We speak here also of that erroneous philosophical system which was recently brought in and is clearly to be condemned. This system, which comes from the contemptible and unrestrained desire for innovation, does not seek truth where it stands in the received and holy apostolic inheritance. Rather, other empty doctrines, futile and uncertain doctrines not approved by the Church, are adopted. Only the most conceited men wrongly think that these teachings can sustain and support that truth. (Pope Gregory XVI, Singuarli Nos, May 25, 1834.)

Can truth and error be part of the teaching of the Catholic Church?

Is it possible for doctrinal and pastoral statements to be so filled with ambiguity that it is necessary for an “super-magisterium,” if you will, the Society of Saint Pius X, to serve as a “watchdog” upon the words and actions of a putative “council” of the Catholic Church and of putative Successors of Saint Peter?

No:

For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.) 

No one who defects knowingly from a single proposition in the Deposit of Faith can remain a member of the Catholic Church in good standing. A la carte Catholicism is wrong for those Catholics who support one moral evil (abortion, contraception, perversity, usury). A la carte Catholicism is wrong for putative “popes” and “bishops” who deny the nature of dogmatic truth and reject the Church's official philosophy, Scholasticism, and support most brazenly movements (false ecumenism) and propositions (religious liberty, separation of Church and State, the new ecclesiology) that have been condemned by the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.

It is always useful to remind readers of the simple truth that no one can hold to a single proposition that has been condemned by the authority of the Catholic Church and remain within her maternal bosom:

The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition" (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88). (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.) 

All the more reason, of course, to flee from everything to do with conciliarism and its false shepherds. If we can't see that the public esteeming of the symbols and places of "worship" of false religions is offensive to God and can in no way lead to any kind of authentic restoration of the "Catholic" Church, then it is perhaps necessary to recall these words of Saint Teresa of Avila in her Foundations:

“Know this: it is by very little breaches of regularity that the devil succeeds in introducing the greatest abuses. May you never end up saying: ‘This is nothing, this is an exaggeration.’” (Saint Teresa of Avila, Foundations, Chapter Twenty-nine) 

Do you believe that calling a mosque "sacred" is "nothing" or "an exaggeration" that can be ignored because of Summorum Pontificum and various efforts, proposed and actual, to rein various practices (the use of "for all" in the “Eucharistic Prayer” in English) in the Novus Ordo service that Ratzinger/Benedict himself continues to observe without any hint of a change at the level of pastoral praxis? (See the “papal “Missals for Ratzinger/Benedict's "apostolic journeys:" Missal for the Journey to the Holy Land, Missal for the Journey to the United States of America, Missal for World Youth Day in Sydney.)

Indeed, how is it a “restoration” of our “ecclesiastical traditions” for almost totally naked aborigines to prance around in front of the putative “pope” and then to engage in "full, active and conscious" participation in a Novus Ordo travesty in Sydney, Australia, on Sunday, July 20, 2008? Is this "nothing" or an "exaggeration" in the sight of God Himself?

Do you believe that esteeming the symbols of five false religions is “nothing" or “an exaggeration” that can be ignored because you want to project onto the Modernist mind of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, a progenitor and apologist of the "Second" Vatican Council, a Catholicism that is not there?

Do you believe that going into a synagogue and treating Talmudic Judaism is "nothing" or "an exaggeration" that can be ignored because of the "progress" that has been made in the past four years?

Do you believe that the thirteen million martyrs who were killed between 67 A.D. and 313 A.D. by the authorities of the Roman Empire were “martyrs for religious liberty,” as Ratzinger/Benedict contended blasphemously on December 22, 2005?

Is this “nothing” or “an exaggeration”?

Do you believe that Ratzinger/Benedict’s praise for evolutionism and for Teilhard de Chardin, a consummate theological evolutionist, is “nothing” or “an exaggeration”?

Is God as sanguine about these things as you are?

No amount of argumentation is going to convince others who don’t want to see or to admit these facts to accept them. Argumentation didn’t convince me. I had to see things for myself as others prayed for me to do so. We must keep this in mind as we seek to sanctify and to save our own souls, which must be the first and last priorities of our daily lives, as we cling to true bishops and true priests in the catacombs who make no concessions to conciliarism or the nonexistent legitimacy of its false officials.

We can’t force others to see or to accept that which they are not ready to see or to accept. Our sacrifices and our prayers and our sufferings and humiliations and penances, offered to the Most Holy Trinity through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, can help. However, we must be content to be thought of as crazy or disloyal or schismatic as we refuse to have contact with the false religion of conciliarism, as we refuse to accept a belief that the upcoming “negotiations” between the Society of Saint Pius X and the counterfeit church of conciliarism can do anything other than result in the acceptance of apostasy, at least in a “nuanced” manner. This is unacceptable to God. It must be unacceptable to us.

Our Lady wants us to sanctify and to save our souls as members of the Catholic Church. She wants us to trust in her loving maternal care. She wants us to cooperate with the graces won for us by the shedding of every single drop of her Divine Son's Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flow through her loving hands as the Mediatrix of All Graces to want to pray more, to suffer more, and to sacrifice more and more for the cause of the restoration of the Church Militant here on earth as part of the glorious fruit of the Triumph of her Immaculate Heart. Do we not have enough love and tenderness in our poor, pitiable hearts to say more Rosaries each day, especially during this month of October?

May we beg our good Saint Joseph, the Patron of the Universal Church and the Protector of the Faithful, to help us to be more conformed to the Cross of the Divine Redeemer and to bear with patience and gratitude the crosses of our own personal lives—as well as those associated with the problems of the Church Militant on earth and the world-at-large—the sorrows that come our way, giving them to all to God through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, which loves us with a love that is perfect united to and beats in unison with the matchless love of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus.

May Saint Joseph help us to be true “stand up guys” who take responsibility for our actions and make sincere reparation to the Most Sacred Heart of His foster-Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of His Most Chaste Spouse, Our Lady, for our sins and those of the whole world, including those of the conciliarists who refuse to take responsibility even for those actions for which they have left a paper trail for the whole world to see and to mock.

Isn’t it time to pray a Rosary?

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.